What advice do you have for others considering Polyspace Code Prover?

We are actually trying to consolidate everything into one solution. To reduce, that might also be a new solution, but we're not currently actively looking for that. It's just that we'd prefer to find solutions that are more suitable for a highly performant continuous integration environment, where we see a lot of deficiencies in Code Sonar and Polyspace Code Prover. We require the analytic assessment and the mathematical proving of correctness. That is one issue that we need as per the standards in our company to allow vehicles to go on the road with FuSa software that needs to be inspected. The inspection level that we reach with Polyspace Code Prover is still considered to be higher than with Code Sonar for highly relevant safety applications. I have used the color-coded verification feature in Polyspace Code Prover for manual reviews. I need to verify that with the team, because it used to be very helpful when doing manual analysis of the code, and for manual inspection. We now only use Polyspace Code Prover for very specific FuSa applications in very high-security environments, ASIL C and D. Due to the manual nature of the inspections, it is helpful. We do use the automated report generation with Polyspace Code Prover. Normally, we have a lot of dashboards controlling software quality metrics. Because we had difficulties in efficiently integrating Polyspace Code Prover into our CI toolchain, these tests are mostly run manually and only occasionally. Then reports are being obviously manually scanned. It is not that we use Polyspace Code Prover for general observation of code quality over the whole ECU software that we create. We still use QAC for static analysis and Code Sonar for more dynamic analysis. Currently, we're not evaluating any options directly. If something comes up on the market that would wake our interest, we might have a look. We do have a strong collaboration with MathWorks because we use their other products such as Simulink, Stateflow, and MATLAB itself. We made it clear that for Polyspace Code Prover, there is really only very limited applicability in our eyes, and we just use it because of our own standards. We are currently trying to get only one tool in our workflow, and currently the favorite is Code Sonar. We've evaluated a lot of different tools, but in the end, a couple of years ago, we decided to go for Code Sonar. We used Teamscale a lot and also integrated Code Sonar into Teamscale, but currently, we're really trying to reduce the number of tools being called. I rate Polyspace Code Prover four out of five.

I advise you to read the documentation first. The start guide's quite complete, so it's the best way to use it. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

If you're using Simulink and Stateflow models within MATLAB, integrating with Polyspace Code Prover is very convenient because they're fully supported. There's a link between the code in the Simulink blockset, which makes verification efficient and practical. Overall, I would rate the solution a six out of ten. It is not a bad tool, it is just not the best tool.

I recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I advise you to check what exactly you need out of this tool. Sometimes, you might not need something as complex as a code prover. However, in a use case where you want to check all possible combinations and inputs to ensure that the software does not behave incorrectly, you will definitely need to use Polyspace Code Prover. It is not humanly possible to perform these checks manually. If you are delivering a product with a quality rating or if it will impact people's lives in some way, then Polyspace Code Prover is essential. But if your application is not that critical, if it does not significantly impact people's lives, and if you can afford not to use it, then you can definitely go without it. Polyspace Code Prover finds many problems that are missed during normal unit testing. However, if you cannot afford the cost, you must evaluate the importance of quality. Overall, I rate it an eight out of ten because of the time it takes.

I'm an end-user. We have the solution on our own server, and I have worked with an AWS-based server also in other organizations. We chose the solution due to the fact that the outputs are very reliable. I'd recommend the solution to others to see if it will produce the results desired based on the code. Users should be able to expect the results they will get and be able to cross-verify. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I would recommend Polyspace with respect to the updated versions; it is quite user-friendly. They have made some improvements as well. However, I have not used other tools. For example, there is a policies analytics check tool, and there is Polyspace Code Prover provided by MathWorks; I would definitely go with MathWorks. I never found any glitches as a user. They have improved a lot in terms of automation. They might have fixed the glitches. Overall, I would rate Polyspace Code Prover an eight out of ten because it provides an integrated development scope where I can input my code and check it at both the unit level and meter guidelines. Additionally, I am able to check for any necessary policy-related items, as well as conduct static analytics checks. This feature allows me to ensure that all necessary checks are completed efficiently.